It would make more sense than repeating the 3-dis
I'd rather see 3-digit numbers that are unrelated to the parent route.
I-238 and I-99 aren't bad, they're groundbreaking.
Quote from: kphoger on February 21, 2017, 03:31:47 PM
I'd rather see 3-digit numbers that are unrelated to the parent route.
I-238 and I-99 aren't bad, they're groundbreaking.
Or 5 digits, in LA there could be a 90210
Quote from: kphoger on February 21, 2017, 03:31:47 PM
I'd rather see 3-digit numbers that are unrelated to the parent route.
I-238 and I-99 aren't bad, they're groundbreaking.
Wouldn't be a bad idea to do a secondary numbering system for Interstates on Spur routes. I would prefer it would still be even for E/W and off for N/S though. Hell you could just make Interstate colored state route shields for any state highways that met standards.
Quote from: texaskdog on February 21, 2017, 03:43:35 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 21, 2017, 03:31:47 PM
I'd rather see 3-digit numbers that are unrelated to the parent route.
I-238 and I-99 aren't bad, they're groundbreaking.
Or 5 digits, in LA there could be a 90210
I-210 and "90210" are in different parts of the LA metro area.
Quote from: kphoger on February 21, 2017, 03:31:47 PM
I'd rather see 3-digit numbers that are unrelated to the parent route.
I-238 and I-99 aren't bad, they're groundbreaking.
I hope you are kidding. Those two routes are the abomination of the Interstate System. :-D
I'm not kidding. I prefer random route numbers over any organized system, because organized systems invariable fall apart at some point.
Quote from: kphoger on February 21, 2017, 04:21:31 PM
I'm not kidding. I prefer random route numbers over any organized system, because organized systems invariable fall apart at some point.
Plus we wouldn't have all this 2di duplication; they could just pull a number from another part of the country. Of course, it wouldn't solve the issues with I-74 and I-69.
Quote from: texaskdog on February 21, 2017, 02:47:18 PM
It would make more sense than repeating the 3-dis
1) Because not enough states have run out of available 3di routes yet? Even California should not count IMO, since I-180 is available (and also IMO California can either grant an exception to their policy on duplicating route numbers, renumber CA 180, or do without an interstate designation).
2) Not everyone feels there is anything wrong with having multiple instances of the same 3di route. I can vouch from experience that there are non-roadgeeks out there that would not have a problem with even having the same 3di used twice in the same state - such as using I-470 in Missouri for both routes in the Kansas City and St. Louis areas. I would also have to wonder if some of the states DOT's would feel the same, especially since Iowa at one time seems to have wanted to have an I-280 on each end of the state. http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/i280.html#280ne (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/i280.html#280ne)
In most states, route numbers of any type do not exceed three digits. Texas and Kentucky are the exceptions rather than the rule. Why this is the case is up for debate. It is difficult to fit a four-digit route into most standard shields without compromising legibility (in Texas this is not a problem, because only FM routes bear 4-digit numbers, and they are so minor that it doesn't matter that much). It may also be more difficult for people to remember a 4-digit number compared to a 3 digit one.
Quote from: texaskdog on February 21, 2017, 03:43:35 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 21, 2017, 03:31:47 PM
I'd rather see 3-digit numbers that are unrelated to the parent route.
I-238 and I-99 aren't bad, they're groundbreaking.
Or 5 digits, in LA there could be a 90210
That would be the Beverly Hills Freeway...LOL!
Rick
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 21, 2017, 06:38:14 PM
In most states, route numbers of any type do not exceed three digits. Texas and Kentucky are the exceptions rather than the rule. Why this is the case is up for debate. It is difficult to fit a four-digit route into most standard shields without compromising legibility (in Texas this is not a problem, because only FM routes bear 4-digit numbers, and they are so minor that it doesn't matter that much). It may also be more difficult for people to remember a 4-digit number compared to a 3 digit one.
Louisiana has 4 digit state routes.
Rick
Because there just aren't four-digit Interstates, the exception being Hawaii.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 21, 2017, 06:38:14 PM
In most states, route numbers of any type do not exceed three digits. Texas and Kentucky are the exceptions rather than the rule. Why this is the case is up for debate. It is difficult to fit a four-digit route into most standard shields without compromising legibility (in Texas this is not a problem, because only FM routes bear 4-digit numbers, and they are so minor that it doesn't matter that much). It may also be more difficult for people to remember a 4-digit number compared to a 3 digit one.
Virginia has had state secondary system route numbers that edge up into five digits in some cases, and has had four digit secondaries for as long as I can remember.
There are also "F" routes (frontage roads, considered secondary system roads) and "T" routes (secondary system routes within the corporate limits of small towns). I know of "F" routes with an F followed by three numbers; and T routes followed by four numbers.
Quote from: texaskdog on February 21, 2017, 02:47:18 PM
It would make more sense than repeating the 3-dis
...this is a thing I simply cannot comprehend. Should Georgia not use State Road 369 because there's a State Road 369 in Florida? The same applies to 3dis....
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 21, 2017, 06:38:14 PM
In most states, route numbers of any type do not exceed three digits. Texas and Kentucky are the exceptions rather than the rule. Why this is the case is up for debate. It is difficult to fit a four-digit route into most standard shields without compromising legibility (in Texas this is not a problem, because only FM routes bear 4-digit numbers, and they are so minor that it doesn't matter that much). It may also be more difficult for people to remember a 4-digit number compared to a 3 digit one.
Louisiana is another exception, since they do have 1xxx and 3xxx state routes.
Quote from: Aerobird on February 22, 2017, 04:02:48 AM
Should Georgia not use State Road 369 because there's a State Road 369 in Florida? The same applies to 3dis....
Remember that the 3-digit US routes don't have duplication, unlike 3-digit Interstates.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 22, 2017, 05:15:59 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 21, 2017, 06:38:14 PM
In most states, route numbers of any type do not exceed three digits. Texas and Kentucky are the exceptions rather than the rule. Why this is the case is up for debate. It is difficult to fit a four-digit route into most standard shields without compromising legibility (in Texas this is not a problem, because only FM routes bear 4-digit numbers, and they are so minor that it doesn't matter that much). It may also be more difficult for people to remember a 4-digit number compared to a 3 digit one.
Louisiana is another exception, since they do have 1xxx and 3xxx state routes.
Louisiana also has 5-digit routes when you count the hyphenated 4-digit routes.
How about this idea: should I-220 ever be completed around Shreveport/Bossier City, you could number the northern half I-220-1 & the southern half I-220-2. :hmmm:
That is what I love about my home state...uniqueness. :love: :clap: :bigass:
Does West Virginia have any secondary state route spurs ("fractional" routes) branching off from a three-digit route? If so, then that would be another state with four digits.
Could be how like Florida does things with three digits. All the X0 are the major east/west routes and the X5s are still major north/south. The gaps are filled in with three digit numbers that start with the first digit of whatever even number they are in; example everything south of 50 would be in the 5XX band to 60. Of course that would have required a 50 and 60 from the get-go and obviously there was a thought that it would cause confusion.
Quote from: kphoger on February 21, 2017, 03:31:47 PM
I'd rather see 3-digit numbers that are unrelated to the parent route.
I-238 and I-99 aren't bad, they're groundbreaking.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ruthlessreviews.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F01%2Finspector-kemp.jpg&hash=5ec3e56e0c02d3099f7e8243b0b94a4430871e2f)
A riot is an ugly thing. Und I think that it is just about time that we had one!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi402.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fpp101%2Fpeaessbee%2Fpromo-angry-mob.jpg&hash=7c64d542fa9a771a23b76e9507cbe70ec0d83b99)
How would such a numbering system work? Granted, rules are meant to be broken and as such there are always violations, but generally, even numbered routes are loops and odd numbered routes are spurs (I know all know this; just repeating for the point of the question) - if such a numbering system would be implemented, what would be the new guidelines?
Quote from: route17fan on February 22, 2017, 09:53:48 AM
How would such a numbering system work? Granted, rules are meant to be broken and as such there are always violations, but generally, even numbered routes are loops and odd numbered routes are spurs (I know all know this; just repeating for the point of the question) - if such a numbering system would be implemented, what would be the new guidelines?
I see three possibilities:
(1) 4di would be limited to spurs and loops. So, for example, one of the I-680 iterations could be numbered I-1280 instead to avoid duplication. This would be the simplest and cleanest.
(2) 4di would be limited to spurs and loops of already-3di routes. So, for example, New York's I-495 could be numbered I-1295 instead, indicating that it branches off from I-295 rather than I-95. This would be almost as simple and clean as #1, and it makes more sense in my opinion However, it isn't necessarily any more intuitive to Joe Driver than #1.
(2) The available pool of parent Interstates would be expanded to 1—999 and the available pool of spurs and loops would change to be 1000—9999. This would require all current spurs and loops to be renumbered for the system to make any sense. In addition, making room for more parent routes would only matter if you [a] renumbered a whole bunch of existing trunk Interstate highways or [2] don't care about breaking the grid.
Quote from: kphoger on February 22, 2017, 07:28:23 AM
Does West Virginia have any secondary state route spurs ("fractional" routes) branching off from a three-digit route? If so, then that would be another state with four digits.
Yes. They're signed "xxx/xx." I don't know if I've ever seen a three-digit "denominator," though.
As to the original question, if you have 10 "children" off a single "parent" in an individual state, then I don't see why you couldn't have a 4di. New York has used up all its x90's, so should a new one be designated, it should be I-1090.
I can see North Carolina needing a 4di at the rate they're commissioning interstates.
I know of no FHWA rule that would prohibit a 4di.
Quote from: hbelkins on February 22, 2017, 10:44:28 AM
Quote from: kphoger on February 22, 2017, 07:28:23 AM
Does West Virginia have any secondary state route spurs ("fractional" routes) branching off from a three-digit route? If so, then that would be another state with four digits.
Yes. They're signed "xxx/xx." I don't know if I've ever seen a three-digit "denominator," though.
Sure enough! I found this route shield for WV-119/13 on GSV:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1092.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi410%2Fkphoger%2FWV-11913_zpsub6duo3g.png&hash=691c8f49643934d49811880348ce073e8a4c5ee1)
Are Virginia's 5-digit routes signed with shields? If not, then that takes us to two states with signed 5-digits route shields (LA, WV).
Quote from: route17fan on February 22, 2017, 09:53:48 AM
How would such a numbering system work? Granted, rules are meant to be broken and as such there are always violations, but generally, even numbered routes are loops and odd numbered routes are spurs (I know all know this; just repeating for the point of the question) - if such a numbering system would be implemented, what would be the new guidelines?
I seem to recall concocting a system for 4 digit interstates with the intent of assigning them to all freeway segments in the country that do not currently have an interstate designation. My system did something along the lines of assigning them in blocks of 100 state by state.
So for example, Delaware would get Interstates 1000-1099, Pennsylvania 1100-1199, New Jersey 1200-1299, etc., all the way through Hawaii getting 5900-5999, Puerto Rico getting 6000-6099, 6100-6999 not used, and numbers 7000+ assigned in sequential order if a state happens to need more than 100.
Quote from: texaskdog on February 21, 2017, 02:47:18 PM
It would make more sense than repeating the 3-dis
With the exception of I-95 (and possibly 10, 80 and 90) no parent 2di goes through more than 10 states and certainly no 3di is duplicated in more than 10 states. It would be possible (administratively) to assign the first digit "1" to the second state to construct a particular 3di that is not contiguous to the 3di with the same number and then "2", "3", etc to the third, fourth, etc. Existing duplicated 3dis could be numbered in the reverse of the method for choosing numbers for other interstates, so that Washington would get the I-(0)x05s and Florida would get the I-(0)x95s. I would suggest a small superscript for the first digits that are higher than "1", so I-
2205 and I-
7580 would be in California.
Quote from: 1 on February 22, 2017, 05:20:19 AM
Quote from: Aerobird on February 22, 2017, 04:02:48 AM
Should Georgia not use State Road 369 because there's a State Road 369 in Florida? The same applies to 3dis....
Remember that the 3-digit US routes don't have duplication, unlike 3-digit Interstates.
Because a 3dus is just as good as a 2dus. It just means it's a branch of the parent route (mostly) but still follows the other rules for US highways.
Now--- here's an idea. Don't all jump down my throat at once:
Except for situations where the 3DI spans multiple states, why assign 3DIs at all? Why not just long the miles in the federal system so the states get funding but just sign them as SRs?
It's important to note that for much of the interstates system's life, even the 2di's were very disjointed. My own state had very few interstates completed end to end until the 70s and 80s, so people for decades were able to deal with a route number ending and a seemingly unrelated route with the same number starting somewhere else in the state. All this before exit numbering and fancy mile markers, so the phantom continuity wasn't necessarily intuitive (unless hagstrom was gracious enough to draw a dotted line).
SM-G930V
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 23, 2017, 06:38:49 PM
Now--- here's an idea. Don't all jump down my throat at once:
Except for situations where the 3DI spans multiple states, why assign 3DIs at all? Why not just long the miles in the federal system so the states get funding but just sign them as SRs?
That's kind of what I had in mind above with just retaining the state route number but making the shield Interstate colors. That would sure solve that I-238 debacle right quick.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 23, 2017, 06:38:49 PM
Now--- here's an idea. Don't all jump down my throat at once:
Except for situations where the 3DI spans multiple states, why assign 3DIs at all? Why not just long the miles in the federal system so the states get funding but just sign them as SRs?
Had some of the early planners had their way we might not have 3dis at all. Note that the original system plans did not have any 3 digit numbers, and only included a select few of today's 3dis as suffixed routes (e.g. NY I-190 as I-90N, KS I-135 as I-35W). If the plans were not modified we would have fewer urban freeways, since states would have been on the hook to pay for these loop and spur routes themselves.
3dis as a concept were created because planners in cities wanted to be able to take advantage of federal money to carry out their urban renewal visions. And indeed if you think about it it is rather odd that we have these relatively short highways of predominantly local utility included in the "interstate" system - they were tacked onto it because of politics.
Hmmm... I'm trying to think of a 4-digit number that would look good on a route marker.....
Nope, sorry, I'm not coming up with anything.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 23, 2017, 06:38:49 PM
Now--- here's an idea. Don't all jump down my throat at once:
Except for situations where the 3DI spans multiple states, why assign 3DIs at all? Why not just long the miles in the federal system so the states get funding but just sign them as SRs?
Because you gotta have that RWB badging, or it's not a good road. See I-99, I-74, I-2, I-41, ...
Quote from: Rushmeister on February 24, 2017, 11:44:41 AM
Hmmm... I'm trying to think of a 4-digit number that would look good on a route marker.....
Nope, sorry, I'm not coming up with anything.
:-D
I think 4di would work fine if they followed the same "rules" as 3di and simply treated the 3di as a 2di.
i.e. if CA-90 was converted into an interstate, it would use I-405 as its parent and thus could be numbered something like I-1405. Or, if it somehow connected to I-405 on both ends, could be numbered something like I-2405.
I am honestly intrigued by the idea of four-digit interstates. I think that as states such as California and New York may start to have the need for more three-digit interstates in each state, and we run out of 3di numbers, four-digit interstates could be of use.
-more input coming-
While in theory this could work, I don't see it ever happening. And besides, not every freeway needs to have an I-shield slapped on it!
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on February 27, 2017, 11:08:25 PM
I am honestly intrigued by the idea of four-digit interstates. I think that as states such as California and New York may start to have the need for more three-digit interstates in each state, and we run out of 3di numbers, four-digit interstates could be of use.
-more input coming-
On the other hand, California and New York aren't likely to designate any more interstates any time soon (aside from I-86 between Waverly and Binghamton, but that's already a future interstate). If NY needs more x90 interstates, I-390 can always become an extension of I-99.
Look at it this way: if we removed all duplicate 3di numbers, then...
I-180 (IL)
I-180 (NE)
I-180 (PA)
I-280 (CA)
I-280 (IA)
I-280 (NJ)
I-280 (OH)
I-380 (CA)
I-380 (IA)
I-380 (PA)
I-480 (CA)
I-480 (IA)
I-480 (OH)
I-580 (CA)
I-580 (NV)
I-680 (IA)
I-680 (CA)
I-680 (OH)
I-780 (CA)
I-880 (CA)
I-980 (CA)
...could become...
I-180
I-280
I-380
I-480
I-580
I-680
I-780
I-880
I-990
I-1080
I-1180
I-1280
I-1380
I-1480
I-1580
I-1680
I-1780
I-1880
I-1980
I-2080
I-2180
I think the prospect of 4-digit Interstates is ridiculous. The numbering system is fine with 1, 2, and 3-digits.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 28, 2017, 02:14:52 PM
I think the prospect of 4-digit Interstates is ridiculous. The numbering system is fine with 1, 2, and 3-digits.
I agree...the system was designed to have duplicate 3di's and it is understood that the I-295 in FL and the I-295 in NC have nothing to do with each other other than the fact they share the same parent. Even non roadgeeks understand that and I have never known someone to have been confused by them.
Quote from: Duke87 on February 23, 2017, 10:42:06 PM3dis as a concept were created because planners in cities wanted to be able to take advantage of federal money to carry out their urban renewal visions. And indeed if you think about it it is rather odd that we have these relatively short highways of predominantly local utility included in the "interstate" system - they were tacked onto it because of politics.
While that is true, remember also that it's the National System of Interstate
and Defense Highways. In some cases 3dis were intended for that purpose - either to bypass cities (both to allow for uncongested movement and so that there would still be a workable road through the area if the city center got nuked), to allow for traffic flow for civil defense, and to connect industries critical to the national defense interest to the system (this was why I-180 in Illinois was built).
Quote from: Aerobird on March 01, 2017, 03:15:46 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on February 23, 2017, 10:42:06 PM3dis as a concept were created because planners in cities wanted to be able to take advantage of federal money to carry out their urban renewal visions. And indeed if you think about it it is rather odd that we have these relatively short highways of predominantly local utility included in the "interstate" system - they were tacked onto it because of politics.
While that is true, remember also that it's the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. In some cases 3dis were intended for that purpose - either to bypass cities (both to allow for uncongested movement and so that there would still be a workable road through the area if the city center got nuked), to allow for traffic flow for civil defense, and to connect industries critical to the national defense interest to the system (this was why I-180 in Illinois was built).
I think you're overstating the importance of the "defense" part of the Act. That was more of a ploy by Eisenhower to get the funding and bill passed more than actually setting up highways to prioritize military movements, despite any lip service to the contrary.
People have taken the idea that it was meant mainly for defense to absurd limits, like that idiotic rumor that interstates had to straighten out every-so-often to allow for emergency aircraft landings.
I do like the idea of avoiding duplication with 3 digit interstates whenever possible I-94 is a good example of this.
I-194 MI
I-294 IL
I-394 MN
I-494 MN
I-694 MN
I-794 WI
I-894 WI
No repeats throughout the states of it's route. But when all are used along the route then I am ok with repeats in different states. Four digits are too much.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 23, 2017, 06:38:49 PM
Now--- here's an idea. Don't all jump down my throat at once:
Except for situations where the 3DI spans multiple states, why assign 3DIs at all? Why not just long the miles in the federal system so the states get funding but just sign them as SRs?
I like that idea!
Quote from: Rothman on March 01, 2017, 08:17:37 AM
Quote from: Aerobird on March 01, 2017, 03:15:46 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on February 23, 2017, 10:42:06 PM3dis as a concept were created because planners in cities wanted to be able to take advantage of federal money to carry out their urban renewal visions. And indeed if you think about it it is rather odd that we have these relatively short highways of predominantly local utility included in the "interstate" system - they were tacked onto it because of politics.
While that is true, remember also that it's the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. In some cases 3dis were intended for that purpose - either to bypass cities (both to allow for uncongested movement and so that there would still be a workable road through the area if the city center got nuked), to allow for traffic flow for civil defense, and to connect industries critical to the national defense interest to the system (this was why I-180 in Illinois was built).
I think you're overstating the importance of the "defense" part of the Act. That was more of a ploy by Eisenhower to get the funding and bill passed more than actually setting up highways to prioritize military movements, despite any lip service to the contrary.
People have taken the idea that it was meant mainly for defense to absurd limits, like that idiotic rumor that interstates had to straighten out every-so-often to allow for emergency aircraft landings.
Especially since Eisenhower didn't want urban interstates; he wanted them to connect regions, not go through cities. The urban miles got added by Congress to secure votes from urban representatives.
Quote from: dvferyance on March 01, 2017, 12:20:24 PM
I do like the idea of avoiding duplication with 3 digit interstates whenever possible I-94 is a good example of this.
I-194 MI
...
No repeats throughout the states of it's route. But when all are used along the route then I am ok with repeats in different states. Four digits are too much.
Not quite. There is also an I-194 in Bismarck, ND. It's short and unsigned, but does exist. https://goo.gl/maps/RkK1joJcbEo
Quote from: Quillz on February 25, 2017, 03:43:06 PM
I think 4di would work fine if they followed the same "rules" as 3di and simply treated the 3di as a 2di.
i.e. if CA-90 was converted into an interstate, it would use I-405 as its parent and thus could be numbered something like I-1405. Or, if it somehow connected to I-405 on both ends, could be numbered something like I-2405.
I would see CA-90 being I-705 (since I don't think there is a I-705 or CA-705 either). But if there were no odd 3di route numbers available, why not I-1105?
Quote from: FrCorySticha on March 01, 2017, 06:32:21 PM
Quote from: dvferyance on March 01, 2017, 12:20:24 PM
I do like the idea of avoiding duplication with 3 digit interstates whenever possible I-94 is a good example of this.
I-194 MI
...
No repeats throughout the states of it's route. But when all are used along the route then I am ok with repeats in different states. Four digits are too much.
Not quite. There is also an I-194 in Bismarck, ND. It's short and unsigned, but does exist. https://goo.gl/maps/RkK1joJcbEo
Next to nobody knows about. There was a I-394 proposal in Michigan and an I-494 one in Illinios but neither happened.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 03, 2017, 03:56:26 PM
I would see CA-90 being I-705 (since I don't think there is a I-705 or CA-705 either). But if there were no odd 3di route numbers available, why not I-1105?
In that particular case, confusion with the similarly-numbered I-105 nearby. Hard to tell, when someone says "I-1105", whether the speaker meant "I-105" and was just stuttering.
A wide range of other options remain, including I-705 (number not used for any route in California), making the short Marina Freeway (remnant of a much longer proposed freeway largely superseded by I-105) unnumbered, or just leaving it as is. It's not as if Caltrans is hankering to slap Interstate shields on every freeway. If anything, it should be criticized for its glacial pace on converting CA 210 to an I-210 extension, and CA 15 to an I-15 extension in San Diego.
Quote from: oscar on March 04, 2017, 01:34:16 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 03, 2017, 03:56:26 PM
I would see CA-90 being I-705 (since I don't think there is a I-705 or CA-705 either). But if there were no odd 3di route numbers available, why not I-1105?
In that particular case, confusion with the similarly-numbered I-105 nearby. Hard to tell, when someone says "I-1105", whether the speaker meant "I-105" and was just stuttering.
I would think it would be pronounced "eleven oh five".
Quote from: oscar on March 04, 2017, 01:34:16 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 03, 2017, 03:56:26 PM
I would see CA-90 being I-705 (since I don't think there is a I-705 or CA-705 either). But if there were no odd 3di route numbers available, why not I-1105?
In that particular case, confusion with the similarly-numbered I-105 nearby. Hard to tell, when someone says "I-1105", whether the speaker meant "I-105" and was just stuttering.
As was suggested by
1 nearby, I would assume that I-1105 would be pronounced as "I-1105" (or perhaps in Los Angeles, as the "eleven-oh-five freeway").
Quote from: oscar on March 04, 2017, 01:34:16 PM
A wide range of other options remain, including I-705 (number not used for any route in California), making the short Marina Freeway (remnant of a much longer proposed freeway largely superseded by I-105) unnumbered, or just leaving it as is. It's not as if Caltrans is hankering to slap Interstate shields on every freeway. If anything, it should be criticized for its glacial pace on converting CA 210 to an I-210 extension, and CA 15 to an I-15 extension in San Diego.
Getting to the world of fictional highways, but it would be nice to see that little stump of CA-90 tie into La Cienega Boulevard north of W. Slauson Avenue.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 04, 2017, 11:17:34 PMI would assume that I-1105 would be pronounced as "I-1105"
Oh, dear me.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 04, 2017, 11:17:34 PM
Quote from: oscar on March 04, 2017, 01:34:16 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 03, 2017, 03:56:26 PM
I would see CA-90 being I-705 (since I don't think there is a I-705 or CA-705 either). But if there were no odd 3di route numbers available, why not I-1105?
In that particular case, confusion with the similarly-numbered I-105 nearby. Hard to tell, when someone says "I-1105", whether the speaker meant "I-105" and was just stuttering.
As was suggested by 1 nearby, I would assume that I-1105 would be pronounced as "I-1105" (or perhaps in Los Angeles, as the "eleven-oh-five freeway").
Quote from: oscar on March 04, 2017, 01:34:16 PM
A wide range of other options remain, including I-705 (number not used for any route in California), making the short Marina Freeway (remnant of a much longer proposed freeway largely superseded by I-105) unnumbered, or just leaving it as is. It's not as if Caltrans is hankering to slap Interstate shields on every freeway. If anything, it should be criticized for its glacial pace on converting CA 210 to an I-210 extension, and CA 15 to an I-15 extension in San Diego.
Getting to the world of fictional highways, but it would be nice to see that little stump of CA-90 tie into La Cienega Boulevard north of W. Slauson Avenue.
I doubt that we would do a 4-di with I-705 available. As it is California apparently has nothing but distain for putting up I-shields. Learn to love the miner's spade. Most of our freeways have them. What we don't have is any consistency in numbering that would lead an outsider to have any reason that they should take CASR-85 to get somewhere and usually avoid CASR-82 or to take CASR-237 and avoid CASR-222.
Quote from: michravera on April 16, 2017, 11:02:38 PM
As it is California apparently has nothing but distain for putting up I-shields.
If only they could have had that sentiment when they did I-238.
I would like to see them designate I-210 and I-905, but mainly because they had intended to originally and because they have covered up shields more than anything else. Otherwise I don't care. CA has so many freeways that making them all interstates is neither necessary nor practical.
California posted original interstates and interstates paid for by interstate funds. Anything else was leftover US routes (50, 101), or got CA state route numbers.
There aren't 4-digit numbers for the same reason we separate every three consecutive digits with a comma. It's harder to remember more than 3 digits at a time. Of course, it's a debatable choice to make three the number of digits we can reasonably expect a human to retain in one's mind at one time-the Japanese, for example, delimit every group of 4 digits. I think 3 is a good number of digits to choose as a maximum. There are ways to tweak the designations given to highways to ensure we don't have to use all digits 1 through 9 for a particular 2di in a particular state. It would bother me to see 4 digit Interstates--it's hard enough to get people to remember directions as it is, without introducing hard-to-remember colossal numbers to make things more difficult. This is coming from a guy who's bothered by the existence of 3-digit Illinois 146 when there isn't a simpler Illinois 46 designation that could be used instead. Efficiency is important in communication (he said after writing an excessively long post)!
Quote from: vdeane on April 17, 2017, 09:07:19 PM
Quote from: michravera on April 16, 2017, 11:02:38 PM
As it is California apparently has nothing but distain for putting up I-shields.
If only they could have had that sentiment when they did I-238.
I would like to see them designate I-210 and I-905, but mainly because they had intended to originally and because they have covered up shields more than anything else. Otherwise I don't care. CA has so many freeways that making them all interstates is neither necessary nor practical.
Things were different in 1985 than they are now 30+ years later. In 1985, we were 10 years behind the 1975 completion date of the Interstate system. Now, people want to add and detract from it.
Quote from: michravera on April 18, 2017, 01:51:26 AM
Quote from: vdeane on April 17, 2017, 09:07:19 PM
Quote from: michravera on April 16, 2017, 11:02:38 PM
As it is California apparently has nothing but distain for putting up I-shields.
If only they could have had that sentiment when they did I-238.
I would like to see them designate I-210 and I-905, but mainly because they had intended to originally and because they have covered up shields more than anything else. Otherwise I don't care. CA has so many freeways that making them all interstates is neither necessary nor practical.
Things were different in 1985 than they are now 30+ years later. In 1985, we were 10 years behind the 1975 completion date of the Interstate system. Now, people want to add and detract from it.
Right now, the only CA interstate route that may be subject to deletion is the unfinished northern portion of 710; all else that's existing is for all intents and purposes safe. Dragging one's feet in regards to planned and presently state-signed (potential) Interstates such as 210 and 905 seems to be a more recent Caltrans penchant (in the '80's they couldn't wait to get those 110, 710, and 880 signs up -- not to mention the anomaly 238).
The only really
logical Interstate
trunk/2di addition in the state is the oft-explored western extension of 40 to I-5 via CA 58, which may yet happen (probably not in my lifetime, however). And although CA 99 is a federally designated (via the HPC 54 route) future Interstate, no one seems to be in a big hurry to actually fulfill that concept -- although I
am somewhat surprised that something like the Interstate concept -- or perhaps at least something that cleans up a few CA 99 trouble spots -- wasn't pressed as a form of "political blackmail" in order to secure passage of the recent fuel tax increase bill -- instead the one "R" who crossed over to vote for the bill got a parkway in Merced and an extension to the subsidized ACE San Jose-Valley commuter service. Maybe that with the recent Chowchilla-Merced upgrade, there's no cross traffic remaining on 99 -- the route, at least for the present, is considered a
fait accompli -- with attention drawn elsewhere.
Quote from: sparker on April 18, 2017, 05:20:34 AM
Quote from: michravera on April 18, 2017, 01:51:26 AM
Quote from: vdeane on April 17, 2017, 09:07:19 PM
Quote from: michravera on April 16, 2017, 11:02:38 PM
As it is California apparently has nothing but distain for putting up I-shields.
If only they could have had that sentiment when they did I-238.
I would like to see them designate I-210 and I-905, but mainly because they had intended to originally and because they have covered up shields more than anything else. Otherwise I don't care. CA has so many freeways that making them all interstates is neither necessary nor practical.
Things were different in 1985 than they are now 30+ years later. In 1985, we were 10 years behind the 1975 completion date of the Interstate system. Now, people want to add and detract from it.
Right now, the only CA interstate route that may be subject to deletion is the unfinished northern portion of 710; all else that's existing is for all intents and purposes safe. Dragging one's feet in regards to planned and presently state-signed (potential) Interstates such as 210 and 905 seems to be a more recent Caltrans penchant (in the '80's they couldn't wait to get those 110, 710, and 880 signs up -- not to mention the anomaly 238).
The only really logical Interstate trunk/2di addition in the state is the oft-explored western extension of 40 to I-5 via CA 58, which may yet happen (probably not in my lifetime, however). And although CA 99 is a federally designated (via the HPC 54 route) future Interstate, no one seems to be in a big hurry to actually fulfill that concept -- although I am somewhat surprised that something like the Interstate concept -- or perhaps at least something that cleans up a few CA 99 trouble spots -- wasn't pressed as a form of "political blackmail" in order to secure passage of the recent fuel tax increase bill -- instead the one "R" who crossed over to vote for the bill got a parkway in Merced and an extension to the subsidized ACE San Jose-Valley commuter service. Maybe that with the recent Chowchilla-Merced upgrade, there's no cross traffic remaining on 99 -- the route, at least for the present, is considered a fait accompli -- with attention drawn elsewhere.
A traversable all freeway route from Las Vegas to US-101 near the center of the state seems like an eventuality (you can already do it on I-15 and I-10). CASR-58 doesn't look like the right routing west of I-5. Perhaps CASR-46? 41? 152?Certainly something south of I-580.